Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

lostechies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#81

Post by patio11 »

sytse wrote: post #17
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, how would you say you compare to BitBucket? Your given plan structures seem to suggest that their pricing structure per user is superior. "A startup with 30 repos and a team of two is completely free." Same with them. "A professional plan with 60 repos and 5 collaborators is $9 per month." 5 collaborators is free with them. "A business plan 150 repos and 10 collaborators is $72 per month." BitBucket…

Thank you for the question. We want to make sure that the pricing only increases in small steps. If you add one more user you should never go from $25 to $50. We also have a free issue tracker, you don't have to pay for it. Jira prices are 4 times more expensive than BitBucket prices. And of course there is the option to go self hosted easily in the future. What do you think we can improve in the pricing of GitLab.co…

We want to make sure that the pricing only increases in small steps.

Many of your users are not price sensitive, at all, and they have a very different definition of what a "small increment" is as compared to you. For example, for a company which has 10 full-time devs, anything under $1,000 rounds to zero. If you tell them "Good news! Instead of asking for an extra $25 we ask only for an extra $5" you're telling them something which is not valuable to them at all, and it might actually be negatively valuable for them. (For example, if it causes you to make the app most responsive to the needs of people who think $25 is a lot of money instead of companies with 10+ employees.)

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#82

Post by guan »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #31
alexyoung wrote: post #29

I'm in a similar position. I'm a freelancer, and I have quite a few clients for various Ruby/iOS/Node projects. I need more private repositories, but the jump to Gold is too much for my business. The issue is largely down to older clients that I only occasionally do maintenance work for. I've got about 15 of these, and they cut into my private repo count. Of course, it's easy to dump repositories on a server, which I…

> Cost for GitHub/Bitbucket vs. time to maintain another web application? Hmm... Both Github's and Bitbucket's prices max out at $200 a month; if you're a freelancer, that's worth about 2 - 4 hours of your time per month. That amount is easily spent on hosting/managing your own repositories. If you can avoid spending 2 - 4 hours a month on repositories, go for those. $200 is nothing if you're running a business.

If you bill 160 hours per week and work maybe 200 hours, that’s still 1.5 to 2 percent of your time. I would call that non-trivial and worth at least looking into.

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#83

Post by tomfakes »

mqzaidi wrote: post #37
sgentle wrote: post #14

I agree and I wish I'd written this article myself. One of the great things about git compared to the version control systems of yesteryear is that it's lightweight enough and (with Github) discoverable enough to make many small repos a viable development pattern. I never liked the old giant-repo-for-all-the-code system, although I understand it's still popular at Google and many other large shops. I think what reall…

This is precisely the reason why we switched from github to unfuddle. Why should my developers start rationing for repos and start putting everything in one large repository, just so that we don't hit the limit with github. For example, we use node.js heavily, and I would like create npm modules that can be shared across repos, and put them in a repo of their own (so npm can install them). Github's pricing forces me…

I used to be a big fan of Unfuddle, and I still have an account there, but the reality is that all of the integrations I use (CI is the most recent one) work great with Github and not at all, or are much harder to configure, with Unfuddle.

Github is creating value with their ecosystem, which is great for them, and, since the code is all in Git, not a complete lock-in if you choose to move.

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#84

Post by mqzaidi »

analog wrote: post #47
mqzaidi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely the reason why we switched from github to unfuddle. Why should my developers start rationing for repos and start putting everything in one large repository, just so that we don't hit the limit with github. For example, we use node.js heavily, and I would like create npm modules that can be shared across repos, and put them in a repo of their own (so npm can install them). Github's pricing forces me…

Is there a reason you wouldn't use public github repos for your npm modules?

because the npm modules are proprietary and can't be open sourced.

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#85

Post by analog »

mqzaidi wrote: post #84
analog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason you wouldn't use public github repos for your npm modules?

because the npm modules are proprietary and can't be open sourced.

Well that's sort of implicit. Why can they not be open sourced?

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#86

Post by kondro »

notimetorelax wrote: post #71
kondro wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you thought about contacting them and asking for a discount for volume? Their enterprise pricing is probably designed for under a 100 employees. No one is going to make you commit to a contract or bite your hand off if you ask them if they can go cheaper.

I doubt that they will cut the price to 100,000$. Why 100k$ because that's more than we pay for ALL Atlassian tools taken together. GitHub just does not provide that much value to cost that much.

You may be surprised and you won't know until you ask.

Where do you think the largest cost in an app like this comes from? Especially the onsite installed version? It's in support of the users.

Just name your budget to them and see if they meet it or not. Simple as a couple of emails. Maybe it could be $40k for 500 users… who knows?

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#87

Post by mcintyre1994 »

guan wrote: post #82
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cost for GitHub/Bitbucket vs. time to maintain another web application? Hmm... Both Github's and Bitbucket's prices max out at $200 a month; if you're a freelancer, that's worth about 2 - 4 hours of your time per month. That amount is easily spent on hosting/managing your own repositories. If you can avoid spending 2 - 4 hours a month on repositories, go for those. $200 is nothing if you're running a business.

If you bill 160 hours per week and work maybe 200 hours, that’s still 1.5 to 2 percent of your time. I would call that non-trivial and worth at least looking into.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but there's only 168 hours in a week.

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#88

Post by notimetorelax »

kondro wrote: post #86
notimetorelax wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that they will cut the price to 100,000$. Why 100k$ because that's more than we pay for ALL Atlassian tools taken together. GitHub just does not provide that much value to cost that much.

You may be surprised and you won't know until you ask. Where do you think the largest cost in an app like this comes from? Especially the onsite installed version? It's in support of the users. Just name your budget to them and see if they meet it or not. Simple as a couple of emails. Maybe it could be $40k for 500 users… who knows?

Fair enough. So far we decided to stick to SVN, I might contact them in a couple years. Who knows maybe by then it will be cheaper.

> Where do you think the largest cost in an app like this comes from? Especially the onsite installed version? It's in support of the users.

Absolutely agree with that, this is the reason why we prefer unlimited licenses. I work at research facility and every year we have thousands of newcomers who stay here for several months and then leave, we simply cannot take on us management of their accounts.

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#89

Post by guan »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #87
guan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you bill 160 hours per week and work maybe 200 hours, that’s still 1.5 to 2 percent of your time. I would call that non-trivial and worth at least looking into.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but there's only 168 hours in a week.

Sorry, I meant per month.

Re: Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us)

#90

Post by guan »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #87
guan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you bill 160 hours per week and work maybe 200 hours, that’s still 1.5 to 2 percent of your time. I would call that non-trivial and worth at least looking into.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but there's only 168 hours in a week.

And my point is that a cost that’s 1 to 2 percent of your revenue every month is worth looking into and possibly reducing. Even if you decide to keep it for the time being, it’s worth revisiting every couple of years or so.
Post reply on HN